Home

Advertisement

Wed, Jan. 28th, 2009, 03:26 am
Who needs a Subject?

viked from</b></a>[info]violet_flames via Mama Hogswatch

There's at least one person on your LiveJournal that wants to date you or sleep with you. So, let's play Friends With Benefits!

The rules are simple:

* If you want to be in a relationship with the person who posts this, post a comment saying "I'm yours."

* If you just want to sleep with the person and stay friends, post a comment that says "I'd hit it."

* If you would like to go on a date with the person just to see where it goes, post a comment that says, "Are you busy tonight?"

Are you scared? You ONLY live ONCE! The kicker is that you MUST repost this and see if it's true for you.

All comments screened.

Tue, Dec. 30th, 2008, 09:21 am
In need of parenting advice

The house we live in is kind of unusual in its arkatekcher (this place's design doesn't deserve correct spelling); there's a finished attic, but it's only accessible through the second bedroom.  Normally we just use it for storage, but a few months ago our daughter (age 17) decided she wanted to sleep up there.  Okay, no big deal, she took an air mattress up and has been happy with it.  She's usually helpful about bringing down the current season's clothes and taking up the others, so her mother and I really haven't had occasion to go up there.

A week or so ago she complained her air mattress was losing air, and the pump wasn't working.  I've done a bit of troubleshooting on the pump with no success, so while she was out last evening I took the vacuum cleaner upstairs to re-inflate the mattress for her.

I was gobsmacked (and not in a good way) to find several Smirnoff Ice bottles, a pack of Marlboros, a small brass pipe, a plastic Coke bottle that had been modified into a "bowl", and a small amount of weed in a plastic bag.

We confronted her with the evidence when she got in, and she admitted to all of it.  Currently her punishments include grounding until Spring Break (at least), loss of most privileges (phone, Internet, TV), and writing a letter to her parents explaining why she did this.

I'm really upset by this.  I personally don't drink; I come from two families of alcoholics, and as a friend once said, I can learn from other people's mistakes.  I don't smoke either, tobacco or ganja, and my wife is asthmatic.

I'm feeling very angry and betrayed right now.  I'm trying very hard not to overreact, but this isn't the first time she's lied to us about things going on in her life.  She tried to hide a one-day suspension from school last year, and said she'd learned her lesson from that.  And almost two years ago, she had to be picked up from a police station after drinking at a party with several other underage folks.

So, anybody have any suggestions regarding behavior modification/discipline/punishment?  Or any ways I can deal with this myself?

Sat, Mar. 8th, 2008, 08:22 am
Memo to the Clinton and Obama campaigns

To whom it may concern:

I believe you are mistaken if you think the rank and file voters in the Democratic Party, as well as the independents we will need to attract for the general election, will make their voting decision based on which of you can more effectively destroy the other.

They will make that decision based on who can more effectively destroy John McCain.

Please take this opportunity to demonstrate that ability in the next few weeks.

Tue, Jan. 29th, 2008, 02:12 am
It's not about immunity!

(Copied from my diary at DailyKos <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/29/02029/4973/275/445165>)


I'm a very straightforward fellow, most of the time.  I find it hard to look at most political issues and see beyond the surface; that's a big reason why I post so few diaries here.  But over the weekend, it hit me like the proverbial bolt from the blue:  it's not about immunity!

Most of the progressive blogosphere (by the way, does anyone still call it "Left Blogistan"?) is riled up right now about the revision to the FISA law that's about to be debated in the Senate.  The one our Esteemed And Fearless Leader Harry Reid chose to bring to a vote, the Intelligence Committee version, which includes retroactive immunity for the various telecommunications companies that have been aiding and abetting the massive invasion of Americans' privacy.  I realized over the weekend the President doesn't need Congress' assent to give the telcos immunity; he already has the power to do that, granted by that quaint old piece of paper, the Constitution.  All he has to do is grant each telco a full, free, and absolute pardon.

There's even precedent for it, if precedent meant anything to the Royalists.  (That's what the little "R" beside John Boehner's name means, you know.)  In 1974, Gerald Ford (back when "R" stood for "Republican") granted such a pardon to Richard Nixon for any and all crimes committed between January 20, 1969 and August 9, 1974.  Mr. Nixon had not been convicted of any crime, he had not even been charged with a crime.  Because of the pardon, he could never be so charged.  Clearly a case of "retroactive immunity".

So one must ask, why does the President insist so strongly that Congress must grant this immunity, an immunity that may well not pass constitutional muster (there is, after all, a ban on ex post facto laws)?

Like I said earlier, I'm not very good at seeing beyond surface issues, but it occurs to me this may be laying the groundwork for the 2012 election.  If Congress, under the control of the Democrats, grants immunity to such corporate lawbreaking, the Royalist candidate in 2012 can blame his opponents for preventing enforcement.  Given the President's hypocritical attacks on budget earmarks in Monday night's State of the Union address, blaming Congress for his own wrongdoing would simply be par for the course.

Please, spread this meme to your Senators.  Tell them not to do the President's dirty work for him,  If he wants the telcos to have immunity, let him pardon them!

Advertisement